Answer:
Under the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, the general rules of evidence apply to both criminal and civil proceedings. However, certain specific provisions apply exclusively to civil proceedings, and some apply exclusively to criminal proceedings.
Criminal jurisprudence lays down certain principles that create significant differences in the application of the law of evidence between civil and criminal cases.
Key Differences:
1. Presumption of Innocence:
In criminal law, the rule is well established that the accused is always presumed innocent until proven guilty.
In civil law, no such presumption exists in favour of any party.
2. Burden of Proof:
In criminal cases, the burden of proof lies entirely on the prosecution (except in certain exceptions under BSA Sections 115, 117, 118, 120).
In civil cases, the burden of proof can also shift to the defendant.
3. Benefit of Doubt:
In criminal cases, the benefit of reasonable doubt is always given to the accused.
In civil cases, there is no such presumption or principle.
4. Standard of Proof:
In criminal cases, the prosecution must prove the charge beyond reasonable doubt.
In civil cases, the standard is preponderance of probabilities.
5. Principle of Justice:
Criminal law follows the principle: “It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent person should suffer.”
Civil law has no such principle.
6. Weakness of the Opposite Party:
In criminal law, the weakness of the defence does not strengthen the prosecution’s case.
In civil law, the weakness of one party can strengthen the case of the other.
7. Doctrine of Estoppel:
The doctrine of estoppel applies to civil law.
It does not apply in criminal law.
8. Confession:
The rules relating to confession apply in criminal law.
They do not apply in civil law.
9. Availability of Evidence:
In civil cases, evidence is comparatively easier to obtain.
In criminal cases, evidence is harder to procure.
10. Degree of Proof:
The degree of proof required in criminal cases is higher than in civil cases.